Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

As more people buy phones like Treos, which keep extensive records of everyone who's ever called, I'm more confused by the corresponding etiquette.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Personal Surveillance Etiquette

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted June 23, 2006.


As more people buy phones like Treos, which keep extensive records of everyone who's ever called, I'm more confused by the corresponding etiquette.
Advertisement

In an alternate universe, the National Security Agency's database of every telephone call made over the past five years in the United States is being used in couples counseling sessions to prove that some guy really did say that mean thing his boyfriend says he said. But in this universe, where the government spies on you rather than keeping couples from breaking up over stupid shit, we must rely on our personal phone surveillance logs to preserve social connectedness.

That's why I've been having an etiquette crisis about my smart phone. It's a Treo 650, the kind that holds a zillion numbers in memory and can therefore identify anybody calling me who has called before. It's like a just-in-time call-tracing system. Even when people try to block their numbers, I can often tell who they are based on how the block looks. One colleague's blocked caller ID always pops up as "4321" and another as "9999999." My phone also maintains a fairly extensive log of who has called me, so I can browse through my own personal phone records for the past year and a half to figure out names, numbers, and times called.

As more people acquire similar phones, I become increasingly alarmed by all this record keeping - not so much because of the mini-NSA feelings engendered, but because I'm not sure what the social rules around it are. For example, I can now be fairly certain that if I call a friend or colleague's cell phone, they'll know it's me before they answer. Even creepier, they'll know I called, and when, even if I don't choose to leave a message. And they know that I know the same things about them when they call. Thence comes my etiquette crisis.

You see, the whole practice of calling and hanging up without leaving a message has taken on a new meaning. Calling and hanging up is no longer really an option - even if you do hang up, a record of your actions lingers on. And there's no benefit in terms of stopping cranks or fraudsters here because caller ID is easy to fake or block. There are at least a dozen services that help you spoof the number on your phone so it looks as if you're calling from 6969696 or whatever. So this is really only an issue for the casual phone caller who isn't energetically paranoid enough to go through the trouble of altering her phone number.

All this is an elaborate explanation for why I stood in the street the other day, staring at a missed-call notice on my phone and wondering if the person who called intended for me to call him back. He hadn't left a message, but then again, he didn't need to - he's a pretty tech-savvy person and would certainly have anticipated that I would know he called and precisely when. Was it like a "call me but not urgently"? Was it just a transient sort of request, like an invite to lunch that would time out by the time I got a message, so he didn't bother leaving one? (In that case, I thought to myself, I really didn't need to call him back.) Or was it some new form of passive-aggressiveness, in which my decision whether or not to call him back based on the call trace became the measure of my loyalty to our friendship?

Charlie, who watched me staring at my phone, opined that I didn't have to call the person back. But then I reminded her of a spat we'd had where she cited my cell phone log, saying she could prove that she'd called 10 times before I called back. She conceded, "Well, you should always call me back if I don't leave a message, but nobody else."

This seemed to me an awfully arbitrary rule. Miss Manners would be indignant. Caller ID is causing a politeness aporia in my life. I suspect this is because surveillance and etiquette are both tools that help us monitor and control what everybody around us is doing. Of course, no matter how stringent the etiquette enforcers are, we still have a choice about how and when we choose to adhere to their little rules. With surveillance, there is no choice.

And, in case you're wondering: No, I didn't return the phone call.

Digg!

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who has a record of every time you called her since late 2004.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
To me, a call without a message means
Posted by: LPB on Jun 23, 2006 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that my call wasn't important enough to merit a message or a return call. I was either calling just to chat for no reason whatsoever or I was calling about something for which I needed an immediate response and for which a later call would be useless. I generally assume the same applies to others or that they will let me know, by leaving a message the next time, if it does not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Face to Face
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jun 23, 2006 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have developed this method of communication with those who I care about and want to talk to. I sit or stand right next to them and as I talk I can watch their eyes, facial expression, body language, and subtle speech patterns that give me impressions, feelings and eventual memories that I consider irreplaceable to human relationships. And I do not own a cell phone. Those who do use cell phones should try my approach on occassion before they lose the ability to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Face to Face Posted by: binkey
safe to say...
Posted by: Allison on Jun 23, 2006 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Or was it some new form of passive-aggressiveness, in which my decision whether or not to call him back based on the call trace became the measure of my loyalty to our friendship?"

I think it's very likely that if the caller was in fact a "him", this sort of logic never crossed his mind. Not to stereotype but we men are usually not socialized with enough subtlety to think that way (for better or worse).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: safe to say... Posted by: moshejp
» RE: safe to say... Posted by: DaBear
Eh. No big deal.
Posted by: kateoneill on Jun 25, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My, we can sure overcomplicate things, can't we?

I have a Treo 650, too, and haven't found myself overly concerned with the new rules of etiquette it supposedly implies. If I notice that I missed a call, and I can tell who called, I call them back if I want to, or I wait for them to call back if I don't want to. Simple as that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

messages are overrated
Posted by: cicatrix on Jun 25, 2006 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I virtually never leave a message unless I have something specific to tell the person - and I virtually never check my messages, I'll only listen to them if I've tried to call the person back and they haven't picked up. I think it might be something of a generational thing, most of my friends and acquaintances behave the same way. Why bother screwing around with voicemail when all the message says is 'hey, call me back'?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thanks cicatrix
Posted by: binkey on Jun 26, 2006 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for explaining what everyone is saying on their cell phones. I have often wondered what could possibly be so important. Now I see.

At first pass, I had concluded cell phones were only for causing highway accidents, intruding on other people's space with loud private conversations, or identifying really busy and important people who's importance wouldn't be so obvious without a cell phone.

It was only later that I came to see their overarching uses, such as eliminating the need to interact with other people who are merely share your physical space, blotting out whatever one might be experiencing when not in front of the TV, or ruining movies, concerts or other formerly important moments that are actually rooted in time and space.

And, let's not forget that it's an "orange alert" world out there. Cell phones make us safer, and I never question the sacrifices we all make for security.

But these are just the uses that older generations have found for them. I'm glad to know of the recent advances. So my hat is off to a new generation of patriots. All these phone calls essentially saying nothing should slow the work of the NSA. And that is a good thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From a service worker
Posted by: peachmcd on Jul 11, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's one point of cell-phone etiquette I wish were more widely practiced: if you're about to deal with a human being who is there to serve you, please finish your conversation and deal with them. The whole transaction will go more smoothly, you'll get what you want more easily, and the human being who is serving you won't be tempted to revert to passive-aggressive retribution for your complete obliviousness to their personhood.

I sell fish over a counter, and my co-workers and I serve many people each day who are in mid-conversation. They point, raise their eyebrows , and/or expect us to lip-read their order, while they continue talking and listening to someone who isn't there.

We all hate it. REALLY hate it. We fantasize about jamming devices that would force people to ring off before we wait on them. My guess is that our fantasy is shared by waitrons, quicky-mart cashiers, hotel desk personnel, and deli workers all over the world.

Please. There's a human being in front of you, whose often-difficult job is to make your life more pleasant and convenient. They deserve a modicum of respect, and the ability to ask questions that will enable them to fulfill your needs without feeling as though THEY'RE interrupting. A polite person will interrupt their cell-phone conversation for a minute, and get better service for having done so. If the call is that important, give it your full attention, and then come to the service counter. Not so hard.

Thanks for the chance to make this request.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]